One Nation, One Election: A Democratic Dream or a Constitutional Challenge?
In a country as vast and vibrant as India, elections are more than just a democratic process—they are a celebration of the people’s voice. But with polls happening somewhere almost every year, the rhythm of governance often gets lost in the noise of constant campaigning. One Nation, One Election is a bold idea that asks a simple yet profound question: can we bring order and balance to our democracy without losing its soul? By holding national and state elections together, we could ease the burden on citizens, reduce costs, and allow governments to focus more on people than politics. Yet, this vision also comes with deep questions about fairness, representation, and the spirit of our federal structure. As we explore this path forward, it's not just about changing a system—it's about reimagining how democracy can work better for every Indian.
One Nation, One Election: A Democratic Dream or a Constitutional Challenge?
Introduction: Rethinking Democracy in the Age of Continuity
The Indian Constitution, much like the nation it governs, is a living entity—flexible, resilient, and adaptive. As generations evolve, so must the frameworks that guide them. One such framework that demands urgent introspection is India’s electoral process. The idea of "One Nation, One Election"—holding simultaneous elections across the country—is a radical yet compelling proposal that seeks to overhaul the current fragmented electoral cycle. But is this simply an administrative convenience, or a transformative stride toward deeper democratic engagement?
The Backstory: When Elections Spoke in One Voice
India’s journey with synchronized elections is not new. In the early years of independence, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were held together—in 1951-52, and through the 1960s. However, with the premature dissolution of assemblies and the Lok Sabha in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the cycle broke. Since then, the country has moved into a near-constant state of electioneering, with 5–7 states going to the polls every year.
A Nation Always in Campaign Mode
Frequent elections have transformed the Indian political calendar into a relentless loop of campaigns, rallies, code of conduct enforcements, and policy stagnations. Every election halts developmental projects, delays decision-making, and drains public exchequers. The model code of conduct, while necessary to ensure fairness, often paralyses administrative functions. The result is a governance model held hostage by the electoral calendar.
The Case for Synchronization: Why Unity in Voting Matters
Supporters of One Nation, One Election argue that the benefits are manifold:
1-Cost Efficiency: Elections are expensive. The 2019 general elections alone cost an estimated ₹60,000 crore—more than the 2016 US elections. Synchronization could drastically cut costs.
2-Administrative Ease: Fewer elections mean less disruption for government staff, security forces, and educational institutions often repurposed as polling stations.
3-Boosting Voter Turnout: Research suggests that voter turnout is significantly higher during simultaneous elections, encouraging greater public participation in the democratic process.
4-Continuity in Governance: Long-term policymaking becomes smoother when governance isn’t periodically disrupted by electioneering cycles.
The Legal Hurdles: When the Constitution Says "Wait"
The enthusiasm for synchronized elections collides headfirst with constitutional constraints. Articles 83(2) and 172(1) set fixed five-year terms for Parliament and state legislatures. To align these terms, some would have to be shortened, others extended—an action currently outside the bounds of the law. Implementing this vision would require significant constitutional amendments, legislative changes, and, perhaps most importantly, political consensus.
Voices of Skepticism: Concerns from the Ground
Despite its potential, One Nation, One Election isn’t without criticism:
1-Dilution of Regional Focus: State elections revolve around local issues—education, healthcare, infrastructure. Simultaneous elections may drown these voices under the din of national rhetoric.
2-Reduced Accountability: Frequent elections keep politicians on their toes. With a single electoral test every five years, the immediacy of public accountability could weaken.
3-Federalism at Risk: If a state government falls mid-term, should we impose President's Rule until the next national election? This undermines the spirit of federalism.
4-Marginalizing Regional Parties: National parties with larger resources might dominate, sidelining smaller regional outfits and diluting diversity in political representation.
Democracy vs. Efficiency: Can We Have Both?
The underlying question is not merely logistical—it is philosophical. Should democracy prioritize cost and convenience, or must it first and foremost be about representation, regional autonomy, and continuous accountability? Holding simultaneous elections might make governance easier, but it also risks flattening the richly textured political discourse of India's states.
Global Inspirations and Local Realities
Countries like South Africa, Sweden, and Indonesia successfully hold synchronized elections. However, India’s federal structure, regional diversity, and political complexity make such comparisons difficult. What works in smaller or more homogeneous nations may not be easily replicable here.
The Way Forward: Reform with Responsibility
The Law Commission, the Election Commission, and think tanks like NITI Aayog have all examined the feasibility of simultaneous elections. They agree on one thing: it is possible—but only with careful, inclusive, and well-calibrated reforms. These include:
1-Amending the Constitution and key electoral laws.
2-Building a broad political consensus through dialogue.
3-Ensuring that synchronization does not compromise representation.
Conclusion: A Democratic Balancing Act
"One Nation, One Election" is a visionary idea, rooted in a desire for administrative efficiency and electoral reform. But its implementation must not come at the cost of India’s democratic ethos. The heart of Indian democracy beats in its diversity—in regional voices, in frequent public verdicts, and in the dynamic interplay between the center and the states.
Yes, reform is necessary. But reform must be humane, inclusive, and rooted in constitutional integrity. Only then can this ambitious proposal truly serve the people, not just the system.
REFERENCES
1 Jack M.Balkin ,”Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution “ 103 North western ,Univ.Law Rev.550(2009)
2 Upendra Baxi ,https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/do-we-need-a-presidentialsystem/
article17617761.ece,last visited on 28/11/2020.
3 Analysis of Simultaneous Elections published by NITI Aayog written by Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai .
4 The Law commission of India headed by Hon’ble Justice B.P Reddy in its one hundred seventieth report on
Reform of Electoral laws,1999.
5 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel , Public grievances, Law 79th Report
6 One Nation One Election:Why Modi govt wants to go for simultaneous polls;Response Paper and
Recommendation for Simultaneous elections
